EVENTS

I’m going to Seattle!

It’s a good deal — I’m going to spend a few days with my family, and then on Thursday, 5 June, at 7:30pm, I’ll be at Town Hall to talk about An Atheist’s Insight. I’m planning on specifically addressing the conflict between science and religion, and then opening it up to a nice thorough Q&A — you’ll be able to grill me. Lots of fun!

One catch: they’re charging admission. You’ll have to cough up a whole $5 to have the privilege of pestering me.

Oh, also, the big reason for doing this: The Happy Atheist is coming out in paperback. There will be a book signing. Or if you’d prefer, a book burning (it’ll sell copies, so that’s fine with me). I’ll also be in town most of that week, so if we want to do an informal get-together, we might be able to arrange that, too.

I’d want to avoid the book burning because of the potential for toxins and particulate matter to be released into the atmosphere. Why not take a page out of your own book (heh) and offer a book mulching instead?

well, i want to see PZ nearly frothing at the mouth, consumed by atheist hatred for … well, all things. then i can explain to my partner that he was being strident, a well-accepted state of being for the godless.

funknjunk @8:
You’ll be disappointed. I attended a Horde meetup once in Seattle expecting my first experience with PZ in person to be like having beers with Godzilla. Total letdown, he was courteous, friendly, interesting, and made a point to have a personal chat with everyone in the room. He didn’t even ridicule my friend who at the time was an acupuncturist, but rather encouraged her in her aspirations to become an MD. (And now she’s in medical school!)

Rey Fox @10:
One angry slymepitter leaves two comments dishing PZ, and says nothing substantive about his book, and you say “It hasn’t got very good reviews” ? Perhaps you should get a job as a statistician at unskewedpolls.com. Also, too: how does one go about “plagiarizing” oneself?

Surely there’s some Humanist or atheist group that can convince PZ to speak in sunny Florida one day. I see all these events in the northern US, but I can’t recall any in the south. I haz a sad :(

Seconded!

Also… Last post PZ said that “all future blog posts will be automatically generated by reionizing their electrons.”
I can’t help but notice this post is coherant! It’s official! The trolls were right. PZ speaks only lies… LIIIIIEEEESSSS!!

Darn, that’s a weekday, so I leaving after work, driving from Vancouver to Seattle, then driving back to get up for work the next day doesn’t make for a fun evening. Let me/us know if there are any events happening on the weekend.

A work night makes this tough. If any informal gatherings happen during the either the prior or following weekend, or down here at somewhat smaller and slightly weirder Portland at any time during your excursion, I would eagerly be a gatheree.

The gloomy tone of my previous message was unintended and not apparent to me until I read it after posting. Welcome (back) to the PNW! We need more outspoken A+ advocates around here. (Actually, we need more people that do that everywhere on Earth, but that’s beside the point.)

Really looking forward to seeing you here.
But since I’m hoping to bring my daughters, or at least recount the event, will you promise to swear at me if I ask a question? Better than an autograph any day, dammit.
(Seriously, glad you’re coming. And get thee to the waterfront; though the aquarium currently lacks larger cuttlefish, there are lovely dwarf cuttlefish, plus well-loved giant pacific octopusses.)

I wish I could make it to Seattle, but sadly I’m on the wrong side of the world.

Even sadder is that it looks like The Happy Atheist is unavailable to me for the time being: none of my devices will read Adobe DRM ePub format books (I run strictly Linux/Android). Dead tree books are prohibively expensive due to import duties where I am, and furthermore Amazon won’t accept my credit card because I’m in the wrong country. (*sigh*)

This is in fact a thing, and scientists who are caught having done that take massive damage to their careers. By publishing the same thing several times, you can 1) lengthen your publication list to make it look more impressive, 2) make it appear that you had all your good ideas at once when you wrote your latest paper, so you look like a greater genius than you are.

PZ reused/adapted a few Pharyngula posts in compiling the book. However, he plainly said so in the book. He wasn’t and isn’t trying to deceive anyone. Slymers gonna slyme.

Nope.
I accept the scientific consensus on the Big Bang.
I don’t claim to have any knowledge of what, if anything came before the Big Bang. Contrast that with your unevidenced assertion “first there was nothing”.

You guess wrong. I’m a guy on the internet who chose to reply to your inane comments.

Are you going with the “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” definition of the word “nothing?”

No, I’m going with “I don’t know what-if anything-existed before the Big Bang.” Quite frankly I don’t care either. I don’t lie awake at night wondering about that. You, however, made the assertion that “first there was nothing”. I’m asking you how do you know this? Can you answer that question? Or are you going to continue with the evasion?

Since you chose to engage me, please do enlighten. What caused primem movens? Peer-reviewed scientific literature please. If you have to resort to theoretical fantasies of what might have happened, at least do me the courtesy of distinguishing between sci-fi and hard science. Shit… I’ll even take a soft science answer from you Tony. Some psychobabble about reality being consciousness would do wonders for your case.

I’m not trying to make a case for anything. I’m asking you for evidence to support your assertion “first there was nothing”

If you have to resort to theoretical fantasies of what might have happened, at least do me the courtesy of distinguishing between sci-fi and hard science. Shit… I’ll even take a soft science answer from you Tony. Some psychobabble about reality being consciousness would do wonders for your case.

Wrong loser, Only conclusive physical evidence, evidence that would pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin, like an eternally burning bush is your only hope of not being shown to be a liar and bullshitter. Consciousness is not a property of your imaginary deity. What an ignorant loser you are.

Peer-reviewed scientific literature is the self-imposed standard of science.

The peer review process is a feature, not a bug.

Theists have no such standard. I can fall back quite comfortably on the single most dangerous word to the atheist scientist – faith. It’s all I need.

Do you have an evidence that faith is dangerous to atheist scientists? Or is this another of your Unevidenced Anal Assertions?

Your calling me a liar and a bullshitter, while thoroughly amusing and quite literally – painless, doesn’t offset the fact that you didn’t tell me what caused primem movens

And *YOU* haven’t explained how you have knowledge of what, if anything, happened before the Big Bang. You’re demanding others give answers to your inane questions, while not answering questions directed at you.Whether or not anyone here (or elsewhere) can answer the questions you’re looking for does not change the fact that you have no evidence for any deity creating the universe.
Hint: Arguments from Incredulity won’t get you anywhere.

Someone has never read the whole Bible.
BTW, when did your god change its mind about loving humanity? The whole flood thing, and wiping out nearly every living thing on the planet in a petulant act of genocide (all bc humans acted in ways exactly as your vile deity created them to do) is not the act of a loving deity.
So did It change Its mind about loving humanity?
If so, I guess It isn’t unchanging.

So I’ll ask my question in a way hopefully Chris and Nerd and Gatekeeper Tony can understand…. “WHAT caused the universe to be created from nothing?”

I don’t know how the universe was created.
I don’t know if the universe was created from nothing or if “something” existed prior to the Big Bang.
You have a hard time comprehending the answer “I don’t know”, so you shoehorn a deity in there.

I always love how the creationists have such trouble with uncertainty. Why does everything have to have a cause? Things happen, randomly but move according to energy gradients, a powerful organising force. The big bang is the beginning of all of space-time in this universe, so the concept of a time before the big bang is meaningless, at least in the 4 dimensions we currently inhabit.

How do you know what Crip Dyke’s opinions are on these topics? You’re assuming a level of familiarity that I sincerely doubt you have. Also, I love how loaded your questions are. Nonetheless, I’m bored, so I’ll bite…

Who says heterosexual marriage is flawed or failed? No one in this thread.
My support for marriage equality stems from believing that consenting adults should have the right to engage in the relationships of their choice, including marriage. The gender of those involved is irrelevant.

Why take snack machines out of schools but put weed vending machines on the streets?

I wasn’t aware there were weed vending machines. Regardless, adults should be able to smoke marijuana with no penalties whatsoever. The vending machines in schools promote unhealthy eating habits in children. These are so completely unrelated, I’m quite surprised you lumped them together.

Why ban cigarettes but fight to legalize pot?

Cigarette smoke can cause cancer in humans. Is there evidence weed can do the same, or any other major health problems? If there is, I’m not aware of it.

If raising taxes on cigarettes will reduce smoking, how will raising taxes on business grow the economy?

I’m not an economist, so I won’t attempt to answer this one.

If capital punishment is immoral, why should abortion be legal?

Capital punishment is taking the life of a human being who has all the rights associated with being human, including the right to life, liberty, and the security of person. Capital punishment is a gross violation of bodily integrity.
Fetuses are not people. They don’t have human rights.

Why save the environment for our children if we’re going to kill them by the millions?

Why do you demand tolerance and equality for everyone except those with whom you disagree?

You give no examples of this lack of tolerance for others.
More importantly, when others spew hateful beliefs, beliefs which are discriminatory or bigoted, beliefs which show one as a bigot, I’m not going to tolerate those beliefs. I will criticize them. I will hope they get ostracized. People are entitled to have their beliefs. They aren’t entitled to have those beliefs respected. Especially when those beliefs lead to the suffering of others.
As for equality…WTF are you talking about? As far as I know, the commenters around here have advocated for equality FOR ALL.

If capitalists are greedy, how are welfare recipients any different?

Welfare recipients making use of public assistance simply to survive is far different from the Koch brothers getting tax breaks allowing them to keep more and more money.

Gah, I don’t have the patience for this bullshit any longer.
You can kindly fuck off douchemonger.

YOU asserted that we have standards and you don’t. In this quote from your comment #38:

Peer-reviewed scientific literature is the self-imposed standard of science. Theists have no such standard.

I merely agreed with this.

I didn’t read all the things you expect me to believe or defend, because the few I read were political and/or moral.

But this quote above – especially in the longer context from which it is taken:

Peer-reviewed scientific literature is the self-imposed standard of science. Theists have no such standard. I can fall back quite comfortably on the single most dangerous word to the atheist scientist – faith. It’s all I need.

is clearly about epistemological standards. What standard do you use to determine whether or not you know something? From your quote, it’s faith: the belief in something in the face of insufficient, no, or contradictory evidence.

If you believe you know something, that’s enough for you, by your own admission. It doesn’t matter if the evidence we have contradicts it. It doesn’t matter if there is no evidence. It doesn’t matter if, to the extent we have evidence at all, it is no better than the evidence for alternative propositions (like the existence of Shiva and the universe resting on the back of a cosmic turtle). You assume that if you believe something, you know that thing. To believe in something, for you, is to make it true.

Your response was utterly irrelevant to your admitted denial of any epistemological standard that relates at all to identifying truth. While we could disagree or agree with any given moral proposition, that dis/agreement would be worthless, because there’s no discussion, no argument. Your only contribution is, “I believe I’m right, therefore I’m right.”

Either admit that you lied earlier when you said you had no standard, or admit that I have epistemological standards and you don’t.

It’s very simple. Are you a liar, or do your beliefs and statements simply have no relationship to truth?

In their little ordered worlds it becomes imperative for everyone else to agree with them on the values of Absolute Troof, so you can bolster your stories against the Unbeliever. What convinced them should surely be enough to convince the rest of the world???